With citizens united, don’t you think it’s relevant that campaigns can accept large amounts of money? Like voters can see endless ads of one candidate if they have enough money. Campaigns can hire PIs to dig up dirt and air it. Money in a capitalist country confers power.
thats probably relevant, but this removes it even further from an oligarchy. And closer to a plutocracy, and if it does work it’s more of a commentary on the average populous than it is the collective society.
Also super pac laws are pretty vague, so unless you donate directly to a campaign, which is pretty well regulated, though probably not enough. You can’t run any ads that aren’t just “tangentially relevant”
Okay that’s fair about plutocracy vs oligarchy (I wasn’t the person originally arguing with you). And fair about campaigning. Thank you
yeah, really the only arguable states for the US government is plutocracy depending on how you look at it, and gerontocracy based on the sheer age of the politicians in office right now.
Nothing else is super applicable aside from the usual, democratic republic and various other shenanigans the US and state governments pull.
campaign funding is a nightmare though. They have also been opened up significantly in recent decades, which a lot of people aren’t too happy about. Personally i just think we should ban campaigning entirely.
What would you replace campaigning with? Or what would a ban look like to you?
